Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #482472 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-27 12:36 +0000 |
| Last post | 2019-02-03 15:33 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 184 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 12:36 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-27 05:01 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 15:30 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-27 08:21 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 11:15 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 21:38 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-27 16:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 18:36 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 11:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-28 22:07 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 08:07 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-29 04:47 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 13:00 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-30 06:59 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-01-31 00:34 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 15:42 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-30 23:10 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 18:36 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 19:07 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 18:57 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 11:21 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-27 10:10 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 17:53 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 14:15 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 12:05 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 22:12 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 16:23 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-28 07:42 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-31 14:21 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 03:48 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-02-01 08:29 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 07:48 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-02-02 11:59 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 23:10 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 14:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 11:29 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 02:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 14:12 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 07:58 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 19:26 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 00:38 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 09:37 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 22:14 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 14:15 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 07:46 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 17:15 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 11:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 09:07 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 18:10 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 11:19 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-29 12:03 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 09:29 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-29 21:42 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2019-01-30 15:31 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 16:00 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2019-01-30 20:45 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 22:28 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 23:33 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 18:12 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2019-01-31 10:57 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-31 12:21 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 06:24 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-31 20:06 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 12:32 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 08:33 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-31 07:23 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:28 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:31 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 12:47 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-02-01 20:03 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 18:26 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 20:10 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 19:16 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-04 01:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-05 12:12 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 16:14 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 16:35 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 17:19 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 17:33 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 18:50 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 19:55 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 17:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 04:11 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 22:35 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 10:05 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 09:37 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 23:37 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 18:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 06:02 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-02 00:32 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 17:32 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-02 10:43 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 19:17 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 15:17 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 23:19 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-02 23:19 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 23:55 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 16:02 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 17:56 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 23:23 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 18:23 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 14:46 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-02-04 10:49 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 09:37 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 18:21 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 13:23 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-02-04 16:31 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 22:27 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-02-05 02:04 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-05 09:27 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 10:40 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 19:07 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-02-04 10:29 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-02-04 18:16 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-31 09:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 09:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 20:48 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-30 23:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-31 20:11 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 03:29 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 03:50 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 19:10 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 11:35 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 16:44 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 09:17 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 21:53 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 14:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-01 08:12 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 09:31 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-01 16:51 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 21:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-01 22:23 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 22:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-02 11:11 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 07:13 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-02 22:06 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 11:31 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-03 04:12 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 17:58 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 08:25 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 10:50 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 22:23 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 12:11 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 23:33 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-06 17:13 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-06 00:00 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 15:18 +0000
Daft as Keith Stein eh! "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2019-02-04 08:51 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-05 11:49 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-03 19:51 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-02-04 09:26 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-04 06:39 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-02-04 10:08 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-04 07:35 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 16:51 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-05 07:45 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 08:13 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 21:52 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 12:02 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 23:43 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-04 04:49 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 13:23 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 13:28 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 00:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 12:58 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 10:56 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 23:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 22:18 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 04:55 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-29 00:28 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 05:48 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-28 07:50 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 09:25 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 12:50 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 15:41 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 15:44 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 16:56 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:24 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:22 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 20:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 20:05 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 15:24 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 15:29 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 15:33 -0800
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 10:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dOU5E.915371$Sj4.330140@fx15.am4> |
| In reply to | #482839 |
On 03/02/2019 21:25, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 4/02/2019 4:58 am, Keith Stein wrote: >> Whatever happens in Fizeau's laboratory, >> it can be described in terms of Galilean coordinates, >> and if i look at Fizeau's experiment from some other >> Galilean frame of reference then the time at which >> anything happened in Fizeau's laboratory is exactly >> the same in both Galilean frames of reference,and >> nothing Fizeau discovered changes that fact eh! >> >> keith stein >> >> > A direct consequence of that is that an observer travelling alongside > moving water would get a different value for the speed of light in water > from an observer doing the experiment with stationary water. Any > evidence for that effect? An observer flying just above a stationary stretch of water at c/n(water), in the same direction as a beam of light, will certainly find that the speed of that light relative to themselves is zero. Of course with current technology it might be difficult to prove that by any real experiment, but assuming it could be done, what result would you anticipate Sylvia ? keith stein > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 22:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gbqlkuFeqkvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482870 |
On 4/02/2019 9:50 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > On 03/02/2019 21:25, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 4/02/2019 4:58 am, Keith Stein wrote: > >>> Whatever happens in Fizeau's laboratory, >>> it can be described in terms of Galilean coordinates, >>> and if i look at Fizeau's experiment from some other >>> Galilean frame of reference then the time at which >>> anything happened in Fizeau's laboratory is exactly >>> the same in both Galilean frames of reference,and >>> nothing Fizeau discovered changes that fact eh! >>> >>> keith stein >>> >>> >> A direct consequence of that is that an observer travelling alongside >> moving water would get a different value for the speed of light in >> water from an observer doing the experiment with stationary water. Any >> evidence for that effect? > > An observer flying just above a stationary stretch of water at > c/n(water), in the same direction as a beam of light, will certainly > find that the speed of that light relative to themselves is zero. > > Of course with current technology it might be difficult to prove > that by any real experiment, but assuming it could be done, what > result would you anticipate Sylvia ? The intent of the discussion was of moving alongside a moving stream of water, at the same speed as the water, and measuring the speed of light in the water relative to oneself. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 12:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4_V5E.175563$JE1.36245@fx11.am4> |
| In reply to | #482871 |
On 04/02/2019 11:23, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 4/02/2019 9:50 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 03/02/2019 21:25, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 4/02/2019 4:58 am, Keith Stein wrote: >> >>>> Whatever happens in Fizeau's laboratory, >>>> it can be described in terms of Galilean coordinates, >>>> and if i look at Fizeau's experiment from some other >>>> Galilean frame of reference then the time at which >>>> anything happened in Fizeau's laboratory is exactly >>>> the same in both Galilean frames of reference,and >>>> nothing Fizeau discovered changes that fact eh! >>>> >>>> keith stein >>>> >>>> >>> A direct consequence of that is that an observer travelling alongside >>> moving water would get a different value for the speed of light in >>> water from an observer doing the experiment with stationary water. >>> Any evidence for that effect? >> >> An observer flying just above a stationary stretch of water at >> c/n(water), in the same direction as a beam of light, will certainly >> find that the speed of that light relative to themselves is zero. >> >> Of course with current technology it might be difficult to prove >> that by any real experiment, but assuming it could be done, what >> result would you anticipate Sylvia ? > > The intent of the discussion was of moving alongside a moving stream of > water, at the same speed as the water, and measuring the speed of light > in the water relative to oneself. To an observer moving "at the same speed as the water" the water is stationary. Every experiment ever performed finds the speed of light in stationary water is c/n(water), so clearly, that is the answer to your question, Sylvia. Now perhaps you will answer mine eh! keith stein > Sylvia. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 23:33 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gbqppnFfprgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482873 |
On 4/02/2019 11:11 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > On 04/02/2019 11:23, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 4/02/2019 9:50 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 03/02/2019 21:25, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 4/02/2019 4:58 am, Keith Stein wrote: >>> >>>>> Whatever happens in Fizeau's laboratory, >>>>> it can be described in terms of Galilean coordinates, >>>>> and if i look at Fizeau's experiment from some other >>>>> Galilean frame of reference then the time at which >>>>> anything happened in Fizeau's laboratory is exactly >>>>> the same in both Galilean frames of reference,and >>>>> nothing Fizeau discovered changes that fact eh! >>>>> >>>>> keith stein >>>>> >>>>> >>>> A direct consequence of that is that an observer travelling >>>> alongside moving water would get a different value for the speed of >>>> light in water from an observer doing the experiment with stationary >>>> water. Any evidence for that effect? >>> >>> An observer flying just above a stationary stretch of water at >>> c/n(water), in the same direction as a beam of light, will certainly >>> find that the speed of that light relative to themselves is zero. >>> >>> Of course with current technology it might be difficult to prove >>> that by any real experiment, but assuming it could be done, what >>> result would you anticipate Sylvia ? >> >> The intent of the discussion was of moving alongside a moving stream >> of water, at the same speed as the water, and measuring the speed of >> light in the water relative to oneself. > > > To an observer moving "at the same speed as the water" > the water is stationary. > Every experiment ever performed finds the speed > of light in stationary water is c/n(water), so > clearly, that is the answer to your question, Sylvia. > > Now perhaps you will answer mine eh! Within your theory, or within special relativity? We're talking about your theory. Your theory is not self consistent. In your theory, if we have the water moving at w, and a light pulse light moving at speed c/n relative to the water in the same direction, then to the moving observer, the stationary observer and the light pulse are separating at a combined speed of w + c/n. But Fizeau shows that the stationary observer sees the light pulse recede at a lower speed than that. It is impossible to reconcile that result with the requirement that time passes at the same rate for both observers. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-06 17:13 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gbvc95FfvtdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482875 |
On 4/02/2019 11:33 pm, Sylvia Else wrote: > In your theory, if we have the water moving at w, and a light pulse > light moving at speed c/n relative to the water in the same direction, > then to the moving observer, the stationary observer and the light pulse > are separating at a combined speed of w + c/n. > > But Fizeau shows that the stationary observer sees the light pulse > recede at a lower speed than that. > > It is impossible to reconcile that result with the requirement that time > passes at the same rate for both observers. > > Sylvia. Seems that Keith intends to ignore this fundamental issue with his theory, and persist in believing it's right. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | maluwozniak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-06 00:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e1a13b6f-a907-4610-a349-845d672e8582@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #483000 |
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 07:13:59 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: > Seems that Keith intends to ignore this fundamental issue with his > theory, and persist in believing it's right. > Too much time spent with the einsteinians, I guess.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 15:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vJY5E.274460$mz2.236285@fx23.am4> |
| In reply to | #482870 |
On 04/02/2019 10:50, Keith Stein wrote: You never did answer this question of mine,Sylvia. > An observer flying just above a stationary stretch of water at > c/n(water), in the same direction as a beam of light, will certainly > find that the speed of that light relative to themselves is zero. Note that in the observer's frame of reference the speed of the water = c/n, so the velocity of light relative to the observer is s simple example of 'c' - 'v', i.e. c/n - c/n, which clearly gives the correct answer of zero, without any of the Fresnel/Fizeau's nonsense eh! > Of course with current technology it might be difficult to measure > that by any real experiment, but assuming it could be done, what > result would you anticipate Sylvia ? I really was hoping for a quantitative answer to that question, Sylvia. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 08:51 -0800 |
| Subject | Daft as Keith Stein eh! |
| Message-ID | <75b9d0a1-7958-44a9-8253-5b3dcc711e74@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482889 |
On Monday, February 4, 2019 at 7:18:53 AM UTC-8, IMBECILE Keith Stein wrote: > > Note that in the observer's frame of reference the speed of > the water = c/n, so the velocity of light relative to the > observer is s simple example of 'c' - 'v', i.e. c/n - c/n, > which clearly gives the correct answer of zero, without any > of the Fresnel/Fizeau's nonsense eh! > :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-05 11:49 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gbs4sqFp1q5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482889 |
On 5/02/2019 2:18 am, Keith Stein wrote: > On 04/02/2019 10:50, Keith Stein wrote: > > You never did answer this question of mine,Sylvia. > >> An observer flying just above a stationary stretch of water at >> c/n(water), in the same direction as a beam of light, will certainly >> find that the speed of that light relative to themselves is zero. > > Note that in the observer's frame of reference the speed of > the water = c/n, so the velocity of light relative to the > observer is s simple example of 'c' - 'v', i.e. c/n - c/n, > which clearly gives the correct answer of zero, without any > of the Fresnel/Fizeau's nonsense eh! Fizeau is an experimental result. Calling it nonsense doesn't make it go away. This scenario raises a similar problem to the one I've discussed in another posting, to which you have yet to reply. I won't comment further here, lest we end up discussing the same point in multiple sub-threads. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-03 19:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5b546b2d-28e2-48d4-ab55-85e6accd36be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482828 |
On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 10:58:10 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 03/02/2019 12:12, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 4:31:55 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > > > > > "There is always, however, enough of matter left to receive > > > and transmit the undulations of light and heat..." Maxwell > > > > Cherry-picking quotes leads to misunderstanding. > > > > > On 02/02/2019 11:06, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > > > > And why doesn't that apply to water. > > > > > > It certainly does apply to water Sylvia. Do the MM experiment under > > > water and you will still get no fringe shift eh! > > > > "Misunderstanding" a rebuttal, Keith? The Fizeau-type experiments with > > MOVING water refute your assertion because the speed is NOT c +/- v, > > where v is the velocity of the water. The value is closest to > > c + v*(1 - 1/n²). This experiment has been repeated many times with > > increasing accuracy using methods that overcome ALL of the bogus > > objections you have raised. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment#Repetitions > > Whatever happens in Fizeau's laboratory, > it can be described in terms of Galilean coordinates, Only my baselessly asserting that Fizeau made errors or by claiming that partial dragging of the ether exists. > and if i look at Fizeau's experiment from some other > Galilean frame of reference then the time at which > anything happened in Fizeau's laboratory is exactly > the same in both Galilean frames of reference,and > nothing Fizeau discovered changes that fact eh! > > keith stein I wasn't talking about Fizeau, dishonest one. Michelson and others redid the experiment with laminar flow and longer times. > > > The light travels with a velocity (very nearly) equal to c, > > > which is RELATIVE TO THE MATTER which the light is locally > > > passing through, for both cases eh! > > > > > > keith stein > > > > Both "c + v" AND "c + v*(1 - 1/n²)" satisfy your claim. Your problem is > > that you prefer the one refuted by experiment and eschew the one confirmed > > by experiment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 09:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q39hss$7n5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #482828 |
On 2/3/2019 12:58 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > On 03/02/2019 12:12, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> "Misunderstanding" a rebuttal, Keith? The Fizeau-type experiments with >> MOVING water refute your assertion because the speed is NOT c +/- v, >> where v is the velocity of the water. The value is closest to >> c + v*(1 - 1/n²). This experiment has been repeated many times with >> increasing accuracy using methods that overcome ALL of the bogus >> objections >> you have raised. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment#Repetitions > > > Whatever happens in Fizeau's laboratory, > it can be described in terms of Galilean coordinates, > and if i look at Fizeau's experiment from some other > Galilean frame of reference then the time at which > anything happened in Fizeau's laboratory is exactly > the same in both Galilean frames of reference,and > nothing Fizeau discovered changes that fact eh! > Umm, no. The whole reason behind the seemingly anomolous result of the Fizeau experiment is due to the speeds NOT combining according to the Galilean transform. The speeds combine according to the Lorentz transform, that is (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2). The speed "u" is, of course, c/n in the medium (water) and it is a significant proportion of the speed of light c, so the term uv/c^2 cannot be ignored as zero. Therefore the speed of light in a medium moving at v is NOT u+v (c/n+v). The Galilean transform has the denominator as 1 so the speed is just u+v. The Lorentz transform has the denominator (1+uv/c^2) or with u=c/n we get (1+v/nc) as the denominator, so the speed of light in a moving medium is (c/n+v)/(1+v/nc). It took over 50 years before someone (Einstein) figured out why. The seemingly anomolous results are due to the SR speed equation, not the simple Galilean u+v result.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | maluwozniak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 06:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4e3dc5ed-a3e4-4eae-80a8-9faa528e47d4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482884 |
On Monday, 4 February 2019 15:23:29 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > On 2/3/2019 12:58 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 03/02/2019 12:12, Gary Harnagel wrote: > >> "Misunderstanding" a rebuttal, Keith? The Fizeau-type experiments with > >> MOVING water refute your assertion because the speed is NOT c +/- v, > >> where v is the velocity of the water. The value is closest to > >> c + v*(1 - 1/n²). This experiment has been repeated many times with > >> increasing accuracy using methods that overcome ALL of the bogus > >> objections > >> you have raised. > >> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment#Repetitions > > > > > > Whatever happens in Fizeau's laboratory, > > it can be described in terms of Galilean coordinates, > > and if i look at Fizeau's experiment from some other > > Galilean frame of reference then the time at which > > anything happened in Fizeau's laboratory is exactly > > the same in both Galilean frames of reference,and > > nothing Fizeau discovered changes that fact eh! > > > Umm, no. The whole reason behind the seemingly anomolous result of the > Fizeau experiment is due to the speeds NOT combining according to the > Galilean transform. So, according to you Fizeau has falsified GT and physics was using them for 50 years more knowing they are false. Right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 10:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q39kaf$lnf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #482887 |
On 2/4/2019 9:39 AM, maluwozniak@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, 4 February 2019 15:23:29 UTC+1, Volney wrote: >> On 2/3/2019 12:58 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 03/02/2019 12:12, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>> "Misunderstanding" a rebuttal, Keith? The Fizeau-type experiments with >>>> MOVING water refute your assertion because the speed is NOT c +/- v, >>>> where v is the velocity of the water. The value is closest to >>>> c + v*(1 - 1/n²). This experiment has been repeated many times with >>>> increasing accuracy using methods that overcome ALL of the bogus >>>> objections >>>> you have raised. >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment#Repetitions >>> >>> >>> Whatever happens in Fizeau's laboratory, >>> it can be described in terms of Galilean coordinates, >>> and if i look at Fizeau's experiment from some other >>> Galilean frame of reference then the time at which >>> anything happened in Fizeau's laboratory is exactly >>> the same in both Galilean frames of reference,and >>> nothing Fizeau discovered changes that fact eh! >>> >> Umm, no. The whole reason behind the seemingly anomolous result of the >> Fizeau experiment is due to the speeds NOT combining according to the >> Galilean transform. > > So, according to you Fizeau has falsified > GT and physics was using them for 50 years more > knowing they are false. Right? > Nobody knew at the time that Fizeau found evidence that falsified the GT, including Fizeau. The GT works OK as a low speed limit since the value (1+uv/c^2) is close enough to 1 for u and v << c. Since everything people of the 1800s worked with had velocities much less than c, except for light itself, the GT worked just fine for them as a low speed limit. Nobody knew the GT was wrong until Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein came along.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | maluwozniak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 07:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <46f2d2e2-b860-4796-a541-063b28b3056e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482888 |
On Monday, 4 February 2019 16:04:49 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > On 2/4/2019 9:39 AM, maluwozniak@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, 4 February 2019 15:23:29 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > >> On 2/3/2019 12:58 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > >>> On 03/02/2019 12:12, Gary Harnagel wrote: > >>>> "Misunderstanding" a rebuttal, Keith? The Fizeau-type experiments with > >>>> MOVING water refute your assertion because the speed is NOT c +/- v, > >>>> where v is the velocity of the water. The value is closest to > >>>> c + v*(1 - 1/n²). This experiment has been repeated many times with > >>>> increasing accuracy using methods that overcome ALL of the bogus > >>>> objections > >>>> you have raised. > >>>> > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment#Repetitions > >>> > >>> > >>> Whatever happens in Fizeau's laboratory, > >>> it can be described in terms of Galilean coordinates, > >>> and if i look at Fizeau's experiment from some other > >>> Galilean frame of reference then the time at which > >>> anything happened in Fizeau's laboratory is exactly > >>> the same in both Galilean frames of reference,and > >>> nothing Fizeau discovered changes that fact eh! > >>> > >> Umm, no. The whole reason behind the seemingly anomolous result of the > >> Fizeau experiment is due to the speeds NOT combining according to the > >> Galilean transform. > > > > So, according to you Fizeau has falsified > > GT and physics was using them for 50 years more > > knowing they are false. Right? > > > Nobody knew at the time that Fizeau found evidence that falsified the > GT, including Fizeau. And if we didn't have our beloved Great Guru to guide us we could still be foolishly thinking that they are not. Surely the experiment itself is no way important without a wise guru telling us that it shows what he wants it to show, right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 16:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q39qiq$1fod$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #482887 |
<maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, 4 February 2019 15:23:29 UTC+1, Volney wrote: >> On 2/3/2019 12:58 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 03/02/2019 12:12, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>> "Misunderstanding" a rebuttal, Keith? The Fizeau-type experiments with >>>> MOVING water refute your assertion because the speed is NOT c +/- v, >>>> where v is the velocity of the water. The value is closest to >>>> c + v*(1 - 1/n²). This experiment has been repeated many times with >>>> increasing accuracy using methods that overcome ALL of the bogus >>>> objections >>>> you have raised. >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment#Repetitions >>> >>> >>> Whatever happens in Fizeau's laboratory, >>> it can be described in terms of Galilean coordinates, >>> and if i look at Fizeau's experiment from some other >>> Galilean frame of reference then the time at which >>> anything happened in Fizeau's laboratory is exactly >>> the same in both Galilean frames of reference,and >>> nothing Fizeau discovered changes that fact eh! >>> >> Umm, no. The whole reason behind the seemingly anomolous result of the >> Fizeau experiment is due to the speeds NOT combining according to the >> Galilean transform. > > So, according to you Fizeau has falsified > GT and physics was using them for 50 years more > knowing they are false. Right? > No. What was true was that there was an anomalous result that did not meet GTs. But I understand what you’re trying to say. First you’re trying to say that there are no physics experiment results that falsify the GTs. Then you’re trying to say that because there were physics experiment results that violate the GTs, then physicists are at fault for continuing to use the GTs. Flop, fish, flop. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | maluwozniak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-05 07:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0d1f96e1-c55c-4870-8c8d-17d3c3cc1bc1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482897 |
On Monday, 4 February 2019 17:51:42 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, 4 February 2019 15:23:29 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > >> On 2/3/2019 12:58 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > >>> On 03/02/2019 12:12, Gary Harnagel wrote: > >>>> "Misunderstanding" a rebuttal, Keith? The Fizeau-type experiments with > >>>> MOVING water refute your assertion because the speed is NOT c +/- v, > >>>> where v is the velocity of the water. The value is closest to > >>>> c + v*(1 - 1/n²). This experiment has been repeated many times with > >>>> increasing accuracy using methods that overcome ALL of the bogus > >>>> objections > >>>> you have raised. > >>>> > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment#Repetitions > >>> > >>> > >>> Whatever happens in Fizeau's laboratory, > >>> it can be described in terms of Galilean coordinates, > >>> and if i look at Fizeau's experiment from some other > >>> Galilean frame of reference then the time at which > >>> anything happened in Fizeau's laboratory is exactly > >>> the same in both Galilean frames of reference,and > >>> nothing Fizeau discovered changes that fact eh! > >>> > >> Umm, no. The whole reason behind the seemingly anomolous result of the > >> Fizeau experiment is due to the speeds NOT combining according to the > >> Galilean transform. > > > > So, according to you Fizeau has falsified > > GT and physics was using them for 50 years more > > knowing they are false. Right? > > > > No. What was true was that there was an anomalous result that did not meet > GTs. > > But I understand what you’re trying to say. Mo, you don't. Imagination, as usual, poor halfbrain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 08:13 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gbp3rjF4l6eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482812 |
On 3/02/2019 10:31 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > > "There is always, however, enough of matter left to receive > and transmit the undulations of light and heat..." Maxwell > > > On 02/02/2019 11:06, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 2/02/2019 6:13 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 02/02/2019 00:11, Sylvia Else wrote: >> >>>> For a given volume of space, one can always find a frame in which >>>> the content has net zero momentum. >>> >>> True, and providing the number of atoms contained in the volume >>> is sufficiently large that the momentum of any single atom does >>> not SIGNIFICANTLY effect the momentum in the volume, then that >>> will be the frame of reference with which light travels through >>> that (little) volume with its characteristic velocity Sylvia. >>> >>>> But for a different, but overlapping volume, the frame will not >>>> necessarily be the same. >>> >>> This is also true Sylvia, and this would be because >>> the average velocity through the small volume does >>> not necessarily equal the average velocity through >>> the large volume eh! >> >> At some point in space, light is travelling at some speed. So which >> volume does the Universe use for its average - the small one, or the >> large one? > > You make difficulties where there are none Sylvia. > As i told you before light waves are totally analogous to how > sound behaves. When light travels through the small volume its > velocity is determined by the velocity of matter in that small > volume, and when light passes through the large volume the speed > of light is determined by the velocity of all the little volumes > which the light travels through. Just like sound eh! There is an essential difference - as air becomes less dense the maximum frequency of sound that is propagated without significant attenuation decreases, so sound doesn't propagate through arbitrarily rarified media. As a result the issue of the how fast the medium is moving when it is practically non-existent doesn't arise, because sound won't propagate through it anyway. Your claim that light is just like sound is manifestly false, because, unlike sound, light propagates just fine regardless of how thin the postulated medium. Indeed, the thinner the medium, the better the propagation. Your theory requires that light propagate at speed relative to that medium. For that to work, the medium has to have a definite speed regardless of how thin it is. As this discussion has already demonstrated, the notion of a speed of a very thin medium is as tenuous as the medium itself. > > >>>> Your response would presumably be that that is just evidence that an >>>> insufficiently large volume has been considered. Yet it appears to >>>> me that no matter how large a volume you choose, one can always find >>>> a larger volume that totally encloses if for which the net momentum >>>> is different, and this is going to apply even on intergalactic scales. >>>> >>> Imagine sound waves passing through a turbulent flow of air Sylvia. >>> The instantaneous velocity of that sound at any one point, relative >>> to you is in fact continuously changing, but for most purposes we >>> don't need to consider this, and it is not difficult to obtain the >>> average velocity of sound though a turbulent air flow. >>> That is entirely analogous to how it is with light waves too eh! >> >> We may not usually care about the effects of turbulent flow on sound >> waves, but we can certainly detect it we want to. > > It can also be detected with light waves too Sylvia. Look at how > light waves distort as they travel close to a how surface, like > just above a road surface on a hot sunny day eh! I dares say - how does that advance your argument? > >>>> Despite that, for vacuum MM style experiments on Earth, you claim >>>> that the speed of light is determined by a small volume (by >>>> comparison). >>> >>> For vacuum MM style experiments there is no problem Sylvia. >>> The frame of reference in which the medium is stationary, >>> is simple the frame of reference in which the vacuum chamber >>> is stationary. >> >> It's far from clear that that is true. More likely the net momentum of >> the medium will change each time a particle bounces off the walls of >> the chamber, causing the same change, in reverse to the chamber >> itself. The consequences of that would surely have been noticed. > > At the macroscopic scale, which is the scale i deal with, "atomic" > effects are not noticeable, by definition eh! Where the medium is very thin, the change in momentum of a single particle causes a significant change to the average momentum. Since you have tied to the speed of light to that average momentum, that implies a significant change in the speed relative to the observer, and that would be noticed. This is direct consequence of your theory. You can't just wish it away with a bit of "macroscopic-atomic" hand waving. > >> And why doesn't that apply to water. > > It certainly does apply to water Sylvia. Do the MM experiment under > water and you will still get no fringe shift eh! No - why is the speed determined by an arbitrarily thin medium, but not by the much thicker water? When light is travelling through water, and the water is moving, where is the medium relative to which its nominal speed is defined? Not in the water, so where? > >>>> So, what is the rule that unambiguously determines the speed of >>>> light in your model? >>> >>> In my (Maxwell's) model, you need to determine the frame >>> of reference in which the macroscopic medium is stationary, >>> and if you can't do that then you can't determine the speed >>> of light relative to you. Similar to sound waves eh! >> >> Nothing stops one from measuring the speed of light relative to >> oneself. The problem for you is explaining why the measurement doesn't >> produce varying results depending on whether it relates to light >> passing through a vacuum chamber on Earth, > > > "There is always, however, enough of matter left to receive > > and transmit the undulations of light and heat..." Maxwell > >> or passing through interplanetary space. > > The light travels with a velocity (very nearly) equal to c, > which is RELATIVE TO THE MATTER which the light is locally > passing through, for both cases eh! It has already been pointed out to you that in respect of light received from planets, this would result in inconsistencies that would be observed, if they were present. They are not observed. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-03 21:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q37nqj$8m1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #482838 |
Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote: > On 3/02/2019 10:31 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >> >> "There is always, however, enough of matter left to receive >> and transmit the undulations of light and heat..." Maxwell >> >> >> On 02/02/2019 11:06, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 2/02/2019 6:13 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> On 02/02/2019 00:11, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>>>> For a given volume of space, one can always find a frame in which >>>>> the content has net zero momentum. >>>> >>>> True, and providing the number of atoms contained in the volume >>>> is sufficiently large that the momentum of any single atom does >>>> not SIGNIFICANTLY effect the momentum in the volume, then that >>>> will be the frame of reference with which light travels through >>>> that (little) volume with its characteristic velocity Sylvia. >>>> >>>>> But for a different, but overlapping volume, the frame will not >>>>> necessarily be the same. >>>> >>>> This is also true Sylvia, and this would be because >>>> the average velocity through the small volume does >>>> not necessarily equal the average velocity through >>>> the large volume eh! >>> >>> At some point in space, light is travelling at some speed. So which >>> volume does the Universe use for its average - the small one, or the >>> large one? >> >> You make difficulties where there are none Sylvia. >> As i told you before light waves are totally analogous to how >> sound behaves. When light travels through the small volume its >> velocity is determined by the velocity of matter in that small >> volume, and when light passes through the large volume the speed >> of light is determined by the velocity of all the little volumes >> which the light travels through. Just like sound eh! > > There is an essential difference - as air becomes less dense the maximum > frequency of sound that is propagated without significant attenuation > decreases, so sound doesn't propagate through arbitrarily rarified > media. And the criteria for that drop-off is when the wavelength of the sound becomes becomes comparable to the mean free path length of the molecules in the medium. Thus ANY classical wave theory in a medium has this feature of a frequency cutoff above which the theory has no hope of successful applicability. It does no good to “smear out” a tenuous medium to treat it like a continuum, because for obvious reasons the model will fail to match measurements. The same is true for light in an interstellar medium, where the mean free path length of atoms in the medium is hundreds of meters. Thus a CLASSICAL wave theory in a medium will disavow its applicability for an wavelengths less than hundreds of meters, corresponding to frequencies of MHz or lower. Thus the model MIGHT be testable for very long wavelength radio waves, but no sensible classical physics treatment would try to apply it for visible light, which has a frequency a hundred million times higher than that cutoff. I raised this same comment to Keith some time ago, but like he does for any experimental result other than the one he wants, he just ignored it. > As a result the issue of the how fast the medium is moving when > it is practically non-existent doesn't arise, because sound won't > propagate through it anyway. > > Your claim that light is just like sound is manifestly false, because, > unlike sound, light propagates just fine regardless of how thin the > postulated medium. Indeed, the thinner the medium, the better the > propagation. > > Your theory requires that light propagate at speed relative to that > medium. For that to work, the medium has to have a definite speed > regardless of how thin it is. As this discussion has already > demonstrated, the notion of a speed of a very thin medium is as tenuous > as the medium itself. > >> >> >>>>> Your response would presumably be that that is just evidence that an >>>>> insufficiently large volume has been considered. Yet it appears to >>>>> me that no matter how large a volume you choose, one can always find >>>>> a larger volume that totally encloses if for which the net momentum >>>>> is different, and this is going to apply even on intergalactic scales. >>>>> >>>> Imagine sound waves passing through a turbulent flow of air Sylvia. >>>> The instantaneous velocity of that sound at any one point, relative >>>> to you is in fact continuously changing, but for most purposes we >>>> don't need to consider this, and it is not difficult to obtain the >>>> average velocity of sound though a turbulent air flow. >>>> That is entirely analogous to how it is with light waves too eh! >>> >>> We may not usually care about the effects of turbulent flow on sound >>> waves, but we can certainly detect it we want to. >> >> It can also be detected with light waves too Sylvia. Look at how >> light waves distort as they travel close to a how surface, like >> just above a road surface on a hot sunny day eh! > > I dares say - how does that advance your argument? >> >>>>> Despite that, for vacuum MM style experiments on Earth, you claim >>>>> that the speed of light is determined by a small volume (by >>>>> comparison). >>>> >>>> For vacuum MM style experiments there is no problem Sylvia. >>>> The frame of reference in which the medium is stationary, >>>> is simple the frame of reference in which the vacuum chamber >>>> is stationary. >>> >>> It's far from clear that that is true. More likely the net momentum of >>> the medium will change each time a particle bounces off the walls of >>> the chamber, causing the same change, in reverse to the chamber >>> itself. The consequences of that would surely have been noticed. >> >> At the macroscopic scale, which is the scale i deal with, "atomic" >> effects are not noticeable, by definition eh! > > Where the medium is very thin, the change in momentum of a single > particle causes a significant change to the average momentum. Since you > have tied to the speed of light to that average momentum, that implies a > significant change in the speed relative to the observer, and that would > be noticed. This is direct consequence of your theory. You can't just > wish it away with a bit of "macroscopic-atomic" hand waving. > >> >>> And why doesn't that apply to water. >> >> It certainly does apply to water Sylvia. Do the MM experiment under >> water and you will still get no fringe shift eh! > > No - why is the speed determined by an arbitrarily thin medium, but not > by the much thicker water? When light is travelling through water, and > the water is moving, where is the medium relative to which its nominal > speed is defined? Not in the water, so where? > >> >>>>> So, what is the rule that unambiguously determines the speed of >>>>> light in your model? >>>> >>>> In my (Maxwell's) model, you need to determine the frame >>>> of reference in which the macroscopic medium is stationary, >>>> and if you can't do that then you can't determine the speed >>>> of light relative to you. Similar to sound waves eh! >>> >>> Nothing stops one from measuring the speed of light relative to >>> oneself. The problem for you is explaining why the measurement doesn't >>> produce varying results depending on whether it relates to light >>> passing through a vacuum chamber on Earth, >> >>> "There is always, however, enough of matter left to receive >>> and transmit the undulations of light and heat..." Maxwell >> >>> or passing through interplanetary space. >> >> The light travels with a velocity (very nearly) equal to c, >> which is RELATIVE TO THE MATTER which the light is locally >> passing through, for both cases eh! > > It has already been pointed out to you that in respect of light received > from planets, this would result in inconsistencies that would be > observed, if they were present. They are not observed. > > Sylvia. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 12:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kRV5E.723073$kk4.707634@fx36.am4> |
| In reply to | #482838 |
On 03/02/2019 21:13, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 3/02/2019 10:31 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >> >> "There is always, however, enough of matter left to receive >> and transmit the undulations of light and heat..." Maxwell >> >> >> On 02/02/2019 11:06, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 2/02/2019 6:13 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> On 02/02/2019 00:11, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>>>> For a given volume of space, one can always find a frame in which >>>>> the content has net zero momentum. >>>> >>>> True, and providing the number of atoms contained in the volume >>>> is sufficiently large that the momentum of any single atom does >>>> not SIGNIFICANTLY effect the momentum in the volume, then that >>>> will be the frame of reference with which light travels through >>>> that (little) volume with its characteristic velocity Sylvia. >>>> >>>>> But for a different, but overlapping volume, the frame will not >>>>> necessarily be the same. >>>> >>>> This is also true Sylvia, and this would be because >>>> the average velocity through the small volume does >>>> not necessarily equal the average velocity through >>>> the large volume eh! >>> >>> At some point in space, light is travelling at some speed. So which >>> volume does the Universe use for its average - the small one, or the >>> large one? >> >> You make difficulties where there are none Sylvia. >> As i told you before light waves are totally analogous to how >> sound behaves. When light travels through the small volume its >> velocity is determined by the velocity of matter in that small >> volume, and when light passes through the large volume the speed >> of light is determined by the velocity of all the little volumes >> which the light travels through. Just like sound eh! > > There is an essential difference - as air becomes less dense the maximum > frequency of sound that is propagated without significant attenuation > decreases, so sound doesn't propagate through arbitrarily rarified > media. It the initial disturbance is sufficiently large then sound will propagate through arbitrarily rarified media. AT least it will certainly propagate through the interplanetary and interstellar media. (Ref: "The Fullness of Space" by Gareth Wynn-Williams. Don't contradict me 'till you read it Sylvia. Well worth reading if you really are interested in the interstellar medium eh!) >As a result the issue of the how fast the medium is moving when > it is practically non-existent doesn't arise, because sound won't > propagate through it anyway. > > Your claim that light is just like sound is manifestly false, because, > unlike sound, light propagates just fine regardless of how thin the > postulated medium. Indeed, the thinner the medium, the better the > propagation. I'm not saying that light IS sound, Sylvia. It isn't. No analogy is perfect Sylvia, and there are certainly many differences between the two, one of which is the one you mention above. Another would be that light travels very much faster than sound, but what light and sound have in common is that they propagate as a wave which travels at a speed determined by the properties of the medium and that speed is relative to the medium. > > Your theory requires that light propagate at speed relative to that > medium. For that to work, the medium has to have a definite speed > regardless of how thin it is. True Sylvia. As this discussion has already > demonstrated, the notion of a speed of a very thin medium is as tenuous > as the medium itself. Read the book Sylvia. Sound does travel in interstellar space, and its speed there is of course relative to the medium. >>>>> Your response would presumably be that that is just evidence that >>>>> an insufficiently large volume has been considered. Yet it appears >>>>> to me that no matter how large a volume you choose, one can always >>>>> find a larger volume that totally encloses if for which the net >>>>> momentum is different, and this is going to apply even on >>>>> intergalactic scales. >>>>> >>>> Imagine sound waves passing through a turbulent flow of air Sylvia. >>>> The instantaneous velocity of that sound at any one point, relative >>>> to you is in fact continuously changing, but for most purposes we >>>> don't need to consider this, and it is not difficult to obtain the >>>> average velocity of sound though a turbulent air flow. >>>> That is entirely analogous to how it is with light waves too eh! >>> >>> We may not usually care about the effects of turbulent flow on sound >>> waves, but we can certainly detect it we want to. >> >> It can also be detected with light waves too Sylvia. Look at how >> light waves distort as they travel close to a hot surface, like >> just above a road surface on a hot sunny day eh! > > I dares say - how does that advance your argument? turbulence CAN be demonstrated with both LIGHT and SOUND, BUT i still NOT suggesting for a moment that LIGHT IS SOUND, and there is a close ANALOGY in that they are both wave motions traveling relative to the stuff they are traveling in. >>>>> Despite that, for vacuum MM style experiments on Earth, you claim >>>>> that the speed of light is determined by a small volume (by >>>>> comparison). >>>> >>>> For vacuum MM style experiments there is no problem Sylvia. >>>> The frame of reference in which the medium is stationary, >>>> is simple the frame of reference in which the vacuum chamber >>>> is stationary. >>> >>> It's far from clear that that is true. More likely the net momentum >>> of the medium will change each time a particle bounces off the walls >>> of the chamber, causing the same change, in reverse to the chamber >>> itself. The consequences of that would surely have been noticed. >> >> At the macroscopic scale, which is the scale i deal with, "atomic" >> effects are not noticeable, by definition eh! > > Where the medium is very thin, the change in momentum of a single > particle causes a significant change to the average momentum. Since you > have tied to the speed of light to that average momentum, that implies a > significant change in the speed relative to the observer, and that would > be noticed. This is direct consequence of your theory. You can't just > wish it away with a bit of "macroscopic-atomic" hand waving. Surely you can't believe a real vacuum chamber starts to noticeably bounce around the lab when you sufficiently reduce the pressure within it. Try it Sylvia, you will find the vacuum chamber is just as stable within your laboratory whatever the pressure within. And i promise you that the light medium within you pressure vessel is stationary relative to pressure vessel, at ALL pressures eh! > >> >>> And why doesn't that apply to water. >> >> It certainly does apply to water Sylvia. Do the MM experiment under >> water and you will still get no fringe shift eh! > > No - why is the speed determined by an arbitrarily thin medium, but not > by the much thicker water? When light is travelling through water, and > the water is moving, where is the medium relative to which its nominal > speed is defined? Not in the water, so where? > You tell me Sylvia. So far as i am concerned it is indeed the frame of reference in which the water is stationary which defines the frame of reference with which light travels at c/n(water). >>>>> So, what is the rule that unambiguously determines the speed of >>>>> light in your model? >>>> >>>> In my (Maxwell's) model, you need to determine the frame >>>> of reference in which the macroscopic medium is stationary, >>>> and if you can't do that then you can't determine the speed >>>> of light relative to you. Similar to sound waves eh! >>> >>> Nothing stops one from measuring the speed of light relative to >>> oneself. The problem for you is explaining why the measurement >>> doesn't produce varying results depending on whether it relates to >>> light passing through a vacuum chamber on Earth, >> >> > "There is always, however, enough of matter left to receive >> > and transmit the undulations of light and heat..." Maxwell >> >>> or passing through interplanetary space. >> >> The light travels with a velocity (very nearly) equal to c, >> which is RELATIVE TO THE MATTER which the light is locally >> passing through, for both cases eh! > > It has already been pointed out to you that in respect of light received > from planets, this would result in inconsistencies that would be > observed, if they were present. They are not observed. Read "The Fullness of Space",if you can get it Sylvia. Highly recommended eh! keith stein > > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 23:43 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gbqqc5Fftn1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482872 |
On 4/02/2019 11:02 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > On 03/02/2019 21:13, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 3/02/2019 10:31 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>> >>> "There is always, however, enough of matter left to receive >>> and transmit the undulations of light and heat..." Maxwell >>> >>> >>> On 02/02/2019 11:06, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 2/02/2019 6:13 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>> On 02/02/2019 00:11, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> >>>>>> For a given volume of space, one can always find a frame in which >>>>>> the content has net zero momentum. >>>>> >>>>> True, and providing the number of atoms contained in the volume >>>>> is sufficiently large that the momentum of any single atom does >>>>> not SIGNIFICANTLY effect the momentum in the volume, then that >>>>> will be the frame of reference with which light travels through >>>>> that (little) volume with its characteristic velocity Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>>> But for a different, but overlapping volume, the frame will not >>>>>> necessarily be the same. >>>>> >>>>> This is also true Sylvia, and this would be because >>>>> the average velocity through the small volume does >>>>> not necessarily equal the average velocity through >>>>> the large volume eh! >>>> >>>> At some point in space, light is travelling at some speed. So which >>>> volume does the Universe use for its average - the small one, or the >>>> large one? >>> >>> You make difficulties where there are none Sylvia. >>> As i told you before light waves are totally analogous to how >>> sound behaves. When light travels through the small volume its >>> velocity is determined by the velocity of matter in that small >>> volume, and when light passes through the large volume the speed >>> of light is determined by the velocity of all the little volumes >>> which the light travels through. Just like sound eh! >> >> There is an essential difference - as air becomes less dense the >> maximum frequency of sound that is propagated without significant >> attenuation decreases, so sound doesn't propagate through arbitrarily >> rarified media. > > It the initial disturbance is sufficiently large then sound > will propagate through arbitrarily rarified media. AT least > it will certainly propagate through the interplanetary and > interstellar media. (Ref: "The Fullness of Space" by Gareth > Wynn-Williams. Don't contradict me 'till you read it Sylvia. > Well worth reading if you really are interested in the > interstellar medium eh!) > >> As a result the issue of the how fast the medium is moving when it is >> practically non-existent doesn't arise, because sound won't propagate >> through it anyway. >> >> Your claim that light is just like sound is manifestly false, because, >> unlike sound, light propagates just fine regardless of how thin the >> postulated medium. Indeed, the thinner the medium, the better the >> propagation. > > I'm not saying that light IS sound, Sylvia. It isn't. > No analogy is perfect Sylvia, and there are certainly > many differences between the two, one of which is the > one you mention above. Another would be that light > travels very much faster than sound, but what light > and sound have in common is that they propagate as > a wave which travels at a speed determined by the > properties of the medium and that speed is relative > to the medium. >> >> Your theory requires that light propagate at speed relative to that >> medium. For that to work, the medium has to have a definite speed >> regardless of how thin it is. > > True Sylvia. > > As this discussion has already >> demonstrated, the notion of a speed of a very thin medium is as >> tenuous as the medium itself. > > Read the book Sylvia. Sound does travel in interstellar > space, and its speed there is of course relative to > the medium. What has that to do with the speed of the medium? > > >>>>>> Your response would presumably be that that is just evidence that >>>>>> an insufficiently large volume has been considered. Yet it >>>>>> appears to me that no matter how large a volume you choose, one >>>>>> can always find a larger volume that totally encloses if for which >>>>>> the net momentum is different, and this is going to apply even on >>>>>> intergalactic scales. >>>>>> >>>>> Imagine sound waves passing through a turbulent flow of air Sylvia. >>>>> The instantaneous velocity of that sound at any one point, relative >>>>> to you is in fact continuously changing, but for most purposes we >>>>> don't need to consider this, and it is not difficult to obtain the >>>>> average velocity of sound though a turbulent air flow. >>>>> That is entirely analogous to how it is with light waves too eh! >>>> >>>> We may not usually care about the effects of turbulent flow on sound >>>> waves, but we can certainly detect it we want to. >>> >>> It can also be detected with light waves too Sylvia. Look at how >>> light waves distort as they travel close to a hot surface, like >>> just above a road surface on a hot sunny day eh! >> >> I dares say - how does that advance your argument? > > turbulence CAN be demonstrated with both LIGHT and SOUND, > BUT i still NOT suggesting for a moment that LIGHT IS SOUND, > and there is a close ANALOGY in that they are both wave > motions traveling relative to the stuff they are traveling in. Since they are not the same thing, let's forget sound. We're not talking about sound. It's another red-herring. > >>>>>> Despite that, for vacuum MM style experiments on Earth, you claim >>>>>> that the speed of light is determined by a small volume (by >>>>>> comparison). >>>>> >>>>> For vacuum MM style experiments there is no problem Sylvia. >>>>> The frame of reference in which the medium is stationary, >>>>> is simple the frame of reference in which the vacuum chamber >>>>> is stationary. >>>> >>>> It's far from clear that that is true. More likely the net momentum >>>> of the medium will change each time a particle bounces off the walls >>>> of the chamber, causing the same change, in reverse to the chamber >>>> itself. The consequences of that would surely have been noticed. >>> >>> At the macroscopic scale, which is the scale i deal with, "atomic" >>> effects are not noticeable, by definition eh! >> >> Where the medium is very thin, the change in momentum of a single >> particle causes a significant change to the average momentum. Since >> you have tied to the speed of light to that average momentum, that >> implies a significant change in the speed relative to the observer, >> and that would be noticed. This is direct consequence of your theory. >> You can't just wish it away with a bit of "macroscopic-atomic" hand >> waving. > > Surely you can't believe a real vacuum chamber starts > to noticeably bounce around the lab when you sufficiently > reduce the pressure within it. No, and I have not suggested that it will. The problem you face is that the lower the number of particles you're taking an average over, the more effect a single particle has. > Try it Sylvia, you will > find the vacuum chamber is just as stable within your > laboratory whatever the pressure within. And i promise > you that the light medium within you pressure vessel > is stationary relative to pressure vessel, at ALL > pressures eh! What does it mean to say that a medium is stationary when it consists of particles moving in all directions at varying speeds? > > >> >>> >>>> And why doesn't that apply to water. >>> >>> It certainly does apply to water Sylvia. Do the MM experiment under >>> water and you will still get no fringe shift eh! >> >> No - why is the speed determined by an arbitrarily thin medium, but >> not by the much thicker water? When light is travelling through water, >> and the water is moving, where is the medium relative to which its >> nominal speed is defined? Not in the water, so where? >> > > You tell me Sylvia. So far as i am concerned > it is indeed the frame of reference in which > the water is stationary which defines the > frame of reference with which light travels > at c/n(water). That doesn't work for you - as I've explained in my other recent post. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web